Christian view of Abraham?

[Anonymous]

So once again, atheist OP changes tack. Having failed at his/her attempt to demonstrate that Jesus never existed, he/she now says there is no evidence of his resurrection.

I guess we can now conclude he/she has conceded that Jesus existed.

Well done, PPs!

[Anonymous]

Obviously many folks back then beloved in the resurrection of Jesus, and died for it, and many folks did not.
One point I found interesting, which is made in the book 'The resurrection of the son of God' (an academic tome that took me for ever to read) is how odd it was that a Jewish sect (such as the early Christian were) would believe in the resurrection of one single man.

Also odd is that the Gospels record that women were the first to see the resurrected Jesus - a woman testimony was considered weak back then and would not have been a first choice if you were going to make something up.

Back in the first century (some) Jews might have believed in the 'general resurrection' but none in the resurrection of only one man.

More details, here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/04/09/the-reality-of-the-resurrection-rjs/
" Keller bases his arguments for the reality of The Resurrection of the Son of God on NT Wright’s book of this name. For those who are interested in condensed versions (Wright’s book after all is 740 rather dense pages), the arguments are outlined in a lecture “Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection” available in audio, video, or text form here or here. Another lecture by Wright at Emory University in 2008 “Why Does Jesus’ Resurrection Matter?” can be found here with Q&A here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So once again, atheist OP changes tack. Having failed at his/her attempt to demonstrate that Jesus never existed, he/she now says there is no evidence of his resurrection.

I guess we can now conclude he/she has conceded that Jesus existed.

Well done, PPs!

not the same Atheist Troll

I am the original "troll," btw. Get it straight.

There IS no evidence supporting that Jesus was real. Again, if his miracles were so fascinating, news would have spread and many others would have written down accounts. 4 men do not history make . . . especially if they were "followers" with accounts not corroborated by others outside of their brotherhood.

Furthermore, the accounts of his resurrection are spurious at best, as they were documented years and years later.

Now, you do have Paul of Tarsus (10 C.E. to 63), who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision . . . a contemporary nonetheless
So this may be something for the Christians to bite into!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:4not the same Atheist Troll

I am the original "troll," btw. Get it straight.

There IS no evidence supporting that Jesus was real. Again, if his miracles were so fascinating, news would have spread and many others would have written down accounts. 4 men do not history make . . . especially if they were "followers" with accounts not corroborated by others outside of their brotherhood.

Furthermore, the accounts of his resurrection are spurious at best, as they were documented years and years later.

Now, you do have Paul of Tarsus (10 C.E. to 63), who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision . . . a contemporary nonetheless
So this may be something for the Christians to bite into!

My, you sure are a busy little bee.

Would that you know more about this issue. If you're interested in learning about this subject,
- Paul of Tarsus was not a "contemporary follower" of Jesus. Instead he was employed in persecuting Christians and converted on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. (Note, BTW, that Paul was well-versed in the details of Jesus' death and resurrection just a few years after these events, which means news of these events was circulating widely right after Jesus' death and wasn't, as you might be tempted to think, added on by Nicaea or some latter day cabal.)
- You write about "4 men" and presumably you're referring to the four gospels. These were written after Jesus' death, which you allude to, but it's pretty clear you don't know how this works. Based on content and literary similarities between three of these gospels, there's a popular theory about an earlier "Q" gospel that must have been more contemporaneous to Jesus, which provided the basis for these three gospels, but which has been lost.

FWIW, many of us find the incredible growth of Christianity, in the face of Roman persecution, to be evidence that verbal and lost written accounts must have been circulating before and contemporaneously with the four gospels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4not the same Atheist Troll

I am the original "troll," btw. Get it straight.

There IS no evidence supporting that Jesus was real. Again, if his miracles were so fascinating, news would have spread and many others would have written down accounts. 4 men do not history make . . . especially if they were "followers" with accounts not corroborated by others outside of their brotherhood.

Furthermore, the accounts of his resurrection are spurious at best, as they were documented years and years later.

Now, you do have Paul of Tarsus (10 C.E. to 63), who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision . . . a contemporary nonetheless
So this may be something for the Christians to bite into!

My, you sure are a busy little bee.

Would that you know more about this issue. If you're interested in learning about this subject,
- Paul of Tarsus was not a "contemporary follower" of Jesus. Instead he was employed in persecuting Christians and converted on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. (Note, BTW, that Paul was well-versed in the details of Jesus' death and resurrection just a few years after these events, which means news of these events was circulating widely right after Jesus' death and wasn't, as you might be tempted to think, added on by Nicaea or some latter day cabal.)
- You write about "4 men" and presumably you're referring to the four gospels. These were written after Jesus' death, which you allude to, but it's pretty clear you don't know how this works. Based on content and literary similarities between three of these gospels, t

here's a popular theory about an earlier "Q" gospel that must have been more contemporaneous to Jesus,

which provided the basis for these three gospels, but which has been lost.

FWIW, many of us find the incredible growth of Christianity, in the face of Roman persecution, to be evidence that verbal and lost written accounts must have been circulating before and contemporaneously with the four gospels.

I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4not the same Atheist Troll

I am the original "troll," btw. Get it straight.

There IS no evidence supporting that Jesus was real. Again, if his miracles were so fascinating, news would have spread and many others would have written down accounts. 4 men do not history make . . . especially if they were "followers" with accounts not corroborated by others outside of their brotherhood.

Furthermore, the accounts of his resurrection are spurious at best, as they were documented years and years later.

Now, you do have Paul of Tarsus (10 C.E. to 63), who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision . . . a contemporary nonetheless
So this may be something for the Christians to bite into!

My, you sure are a busy little bee.

Would that you know more about this issue. If you're interested in learning about this subject,
- Paul of Tarsus was not a "contemporary follower" of Jesus. Instead he was employed in persecuting Christians and converted on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. (Note, BTW, that Paul was well-versed in the details of Jesus' death and resurrection just a few years after these events, which means news of these events was circulating widely right after Jesus' death and wasn't, as you might be tempted to think, added on by Nicaea or some latter day cabal.)
- You write about "4 men" and presumably you're referring to the four gospels. These were written after Jesus' death, which you allude to, but it's pretty clear you don't know how this works. Based on content and literary similarities between three of these gospels, t

here's a popular theory about an earlier "Q" gospel that must have been more contemporaneous to Jesus,

which provided the basis for these three gospels, but which has been lost.

FWIW, many of us find the incredible growth of Christianity, in the face of Roman persecution, to be evidence that verbal and lost written accounts must have been circulating before and contemporaneously with the four gospels.

I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

Whatever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

You still don't understand that Christianity was monotheistic from the very beginning, do you? You can wordsmith this till you're blue in the face, and talk about how Nicea "established" monotheism (your earlier post) or how Nicea suppisefly "solidified a framework around one God" (your post above). Unfortunately, it's clear from your obvious confusion, in your post above, about basic historical facts involving the role of the Q gospel and Nicea's role in authenticating gospels, that youre still very confused about these very basic facts of history (without even bringing faith into it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

You still don't understand that Christianity was monotheistic from the very beginning, do you? You can wordsmith this till you're blue in the face, and talk about how Nicea "established" monotheism (your earlier post) or how Nicea suppisefly "solidified a framework around one God" (your post above). Unfortunately, it's clear from your obvious confusion, in your post above, about basic historical facts involving the role of the Q gospel and Nicea's role in authenticating gospels, that youre still very confused about these very basic facts of history (without even bringing faith into it).

Let me be kind in saying that you're a bit slow.

Of course Christianity was monotheistic - for purposes of control, honey bun. However, I've said - again and again and again (b/c you and your kind have had difficulty in absorbing this fact) that Christianity stems from a polytheistic culture. It was a way of picking and choosing a god. A god was chosen, given powers (all from pagan gods), and no one questioned their new god.

I'm tired of giving evidence to support my claims - only to return to find some ridiculous counterargument that has no strong backing.

Love your god, sweetie.

I will love my husband and kids. I will work hard to improve humanity. I will live a happy life. But I will not be controlled by an ancient text about some prophet who was born of a virgin and "sacrificed" to open up the heavens for us.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

I'm good!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:4not the same Atheist Troll

I am the original "troll," btw. Get it straight.

There IS no evidence supporting that Jesus was real. Again, if his miracles were so fascinating, news would have spread and many others would have written down accounts. 4 men do not history make . . . especially if they were "followers" with accounts not corroborated by others outside of their brotherhood.

Furthermore, the accounts of his resurrection are spurious at best, as they were documented years and years later.

Now, you do have Paul of Tarsus (10 C.E. to 63), who claimed to have seen Jesus in a vision . . . a contemporary nonetheless
So this may be something for the Christians to bite into!

My, you sure are a busy little bee.

Would that you know more about this issue. If you're interested in learning about this subject,
- Paul of Tarsus was not a "contemporary follower" of Jesus. Instead he was employed in persecuting Christians and converted on the road to Damascus some time after Jesus' death. (Note, BTW, that Paul was well-versed in the details of Jesus' death and resurrection just a few years after these events, which means news of these events was circulating widely right after Jesus' death and wasn't, as you might be tempted to think, added on by Nicaea or some latter day cabal.)
- You write about "4 men" and presumably you're referring to the four gospels. These were written after Jesus' death, which you allude to, but it's pretty clear you don't know how this works. Based on content and literary similarities between three of these gospels, t

here's a popular theory about an earlier "Q" gospel that must have been more contemporaneous to Jesus,

which provided the basis for these three gospels, but which has been lost.

FWIW, many of us find the incredible growth of Christianity, in the face of Roman persecution, to be evidence that verbal and lost written accounts must have been circulating before and contemporaneously with the four gospels.

I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

Whatever

Thanks for the profound response.

I am now a believer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

You still don't understand that Christianity was monotheistic from the very beginning, do you? You can wordsmith this till you're blue in the face, and talk about how Nicea "established" monotheism (your earlier post) or how Nicea suppisefly "solidified a framework around one God" (your post above). Unfortunately, it's clear from your obvious confusion, in your post above, about basic historical facts involving the role of the Q gospel and Nicea's role in authenticating gospels, that youre still very confused about these very basic facts of history (without even bringing faith into it).

Let me be kind in saying that you're a bit slow.

Of course Christianity was monotheistic - for purposes of control, honey bun. However, I've said - again and again and again (b/c you and your kind have had difficulty in absorbing this fact) that Christianity stems from a polytheistic culture. It was a way of picking and choosing a god. A god was chosen, given powers (all from pagan gods), and no one questioned their new god.

I'm tired of giving evidence to support my claims - only to return to find some ridiculous counterargument that has no strong backing.

Love your god, sweetie.

I will love my husband and kids. I will work hard to improve humanity. I will live a happy life. But I will not be controlled by an ancient text about some prophet who was born of a virgin and "sacrificed" to open up the heavens for us.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

I'm good!

The roots of Christianity and Judaism are in ancient Semitic religions. These were polytheistic, the belief and worship of many gods. They progressed at some point to henotheism, the belief in many gods but the worship of only one, often a tribal god. For the ancient Jews, this was Yahweh. Over time, the worship of this one god evolved into a belief in only one God. This is where Judaism was at the time of Christ. Atheist PP, I think you agree with all this.

According to mainstream views, Jesus and all his followers were monotheistic. Jesus was simply God come down to earth, not a separate God.

But you seem to see Jesus (or perhaps his followers) as somehow re-establishing the polytheistic roots of ancient Judaism, with Jesus as a separate god to be adored alongside the now established Jewish God. And somehow, they established a third more elusive god to be worshipped as well, the Holy Spirit.

Your thesis appears to be that the Council of Nicea pronounced Christianity a firmly monotheistic religion with a triune God because it is easier to control people with a monotheistic religion than with a polytheistic religion. I must say, you completely lose me here--where is the evidence that monotheistic religions are inherently more given to controlling the masses (I think this is your contention) than polytheistic religions?

And not just evidence that we can see today, but evidence Nicea would have had at hand to make such a calculated judgment. And where is the evidence that there were polytheistic cults devoted to Jesus and other cults devoted to the Holy Spirit that Nicea felt it had to stamp out?

And BTW, I don't think any of the Christian PPs here feel they are "controlled by an ancient text."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I didn't say he was a follower. I said he was a contemporary - as in alive during that time.
different meaning, wordsmith

And the council decided which books to use in order to solidify a Christian framework revolving around ONE God. So there were missing chapters, which you call the earlier "Q" gospel. So until these books are found, we're left with the four gospels. I hardly think that four men are proof that Jesus existed.

You still don't understand that Christianity was monotheistic from the very beginning, do you? You can wordsmith this till you're blue in the face, and talk about how Nicea "established" monotheism (your earlier post) or how Nicea suppisefly "solidified a framework around one God" (your post above). Unfortunately, it's clear from your obvious confusion, in your post above, about basic historical facts involving the role of the Q gospel and Nicea's role in authenticating gospels, that youre still very confused about these very basic facts of history (without even bringing faith into it).

Let me be kind in saying that you're a bit slow.

Of course Christianity was monotheistic - for purposes of control, honey bun. However, I've said - again and again and again (b/c you and your kind have had difficulty in absorbing this fact) that Christianity stems from a polytheistic culture. It was a way of picking and choosing a god. A god was chosen, given powers (all from pagan gods), and no one questioned their new god.

I'm tired of giving evidence to support my claims - only to return to find some ridiculous counterargument that has no strong backing.

Love your god, sweetie.

I will love my husband and kids. I will work hard to improve humanity. I will live a happy life. But I will not be controlled by an ancient text about some prophet who was born of a virgin and "sacrificed" to open up the heavens for us.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

I'm good!

The roots of Christianity and Judaism are in ancient Semitic religions. These were polytheistic, the belief and worship of many gods. They progressed at some point to henotheism, the belief in many gods but the worship of only one, often a tribal god. For the ancient Jews, this was Yahweh. Over time, the worship of this one god evolved into a belief in only one God. This is where Judaism was at the time of Christ. Atheist PP, I think you agree with all this.

According to mainstream views, Jesus and all his followers were monotheistic. Jesus was simply God come down to earth, not a separate God.

But you seem to see Jesus (or perhaps his followers) as somehow re-establishing the polytheistic roots of ancient Judaism, with Jesus as a separate god to be adored alongside the now established Jewish God. And somehow, they established a third more elusive god to be worshipped as well, the Holy Spirit.

Your thesis appears to be that the Council of Nicea pronounced Christianity a firmly monotheistic religion with a triune God because it is easier to control people with a monotheistic religion than with a polytheistic religion. I must say, you completely lose me here--where is the evidence that monotheistic religions are inherently more given to controlling the masses (I think this is your contention) than polytheistic religions?

And not just evidence that we can see today, but evidence Nicea would have had at hand to make such a calculated judgment. And where is the evidence that there were polytheistic cults devoted to Jesus and other cults devoted to the Holy Spirit that Nicea felt it had to stamp out?

And BTW, I don't think any of the Christian PPs here feel they are "controlled by an ancient text."

I can't even bear the thought of reading through your post.

I'm done.

If you need a god to get your through life, then more power to you, Chris Addict.

I have my evidence. I rely on historians. I'm not foolish in thinking that there's a god who will save my soul if I abide by some silly guidelines. I would rather practice self-management.

Good luck to you, and may your god find you during the end of days.

If not, I'll see you in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
And BTW, I don't think any of the Christian PPs here feel they are "controlled by an ancient text."

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean they are not in fact controlled by it. he most effective kind of control seems natural

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I can't even bear the thought of reading through your post.

I'm done.

If you need a god to get your through life, then more power to you, Chris Addict.

I have my evidence. I rely on historians. I'm not foolish in thinking that there's a god who will save my soul if I abide by some silly guidelines. I would rather practice self-management.

Good luck to you, and may your god find you during the end of days.

If not, I'll see you in hell.

I guess atheist OP is throwing in the towel on the thread she started....

[Anonymous]

I haven't lost track of this thread. It's too much.

Btw, I'm the OP. And I am not an atheist. I believe in God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I can't even bear the thought of reading through your post.

I'm done.

If you need a god to get your through life, then more power to you, Chris Addict.

I have my evidence. I rely on historians. I'm not foolish in thinking that there's a god who will save my soul if I abide by some silly guidelines. I would rather practice self-management.

Good luck to you, and may your god find you during the end of days.

If not, I'll see you in hell.

I guess atheist OP is throwing in the towel on the thread she started....

With the help of the Christian pp, the thread can have eternal life